SSM argument shows our political debate is captured by the fringe

Tony Abbott gives a press conference in Hobart about the alleged headbutting.

ABC News: Selina Ross

I must admit Tony Abbott does not ordinarily put me in mind of French philosophers, but the former prime minister's slightly swollen lip, the product of an alleged headbutt from Astro 'Funknukl' Labe, a 38-year-old DJ wearing a "Yes" badge, has had me dusting off the books.

Consider the words of Raymond Aron:

"Lucidity demands effort: passion automatically goes at a gallop."

The same-sex marriage debate is just the latest example of passions triumphing over lucidity. Too many people on the fringes — either yes or no — preferring to vilify or mock or threaten or now, it seems, physically attack their ideological opponents.

Look around our world, everything from the Brexit vote, to the election of Donald Trump, tearing down statues, or what to do about North Korea. It seems we are all too eager to fight from the trenches than seek common ground.

Another French thinker (and the French do know something about passion and revolution) Simone Weil once wrote:

"Modern life is given over to immoderation. Immoderation invades everything: actions and thought, public and private ... There is no more balance anywhere."

Seeking moderation

Professor of political science, Aurelian Craiutu, is seeking to revive the great traditions of debate and discussion, to open up that lost middle ground, in his new book Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes.

It is a book for our times precisely because it is so at odds with our times.

The very idea of moderation may appear limp or lacking conviction or the province of conservatives seeking to yell "STOP!" at a rapidly advancing world.

Far from it. Craiutu begins his book with a quote from the writer Albert Camus:

"Our world does not need tepid souls. It needs burning hearts, men who know the proper place of moderation."

To seek moderation is not abandon or compromise one's own beliefs but to seek to understand the views of others and to seek connection, to locate Arthur Schlesinger Jr's "vital centre".

Craiutu says moderates believe in dialogue and reject a black-and-white view of the world; they distrust ideology and reject extremism and fanaticism in all its forms.

They practice the art of political trimming, seeking to "adjust the cargo and trim the sails of the ship of the state in order to keep it on an even keel".

Playing to nationalism and nostalgia

Compare that to those who seek refuge in supposed certainty, who shut down efforts at persuasion and turn difference into a pathology rejecting not just the views of an opponent but demeaning their very humanity.

You hear it constantly: "It is not just your views that are wrong, there is something wrong with you."

To have a principled or faith-based objection to same-sex marriage is to be too easily labelled "homophobic", or to be concerned about rates and mix of immigration is to be "racist", or to defend the principle of free speech is to support bigotry.

Raymond Aron, who watched the rise of Nazis and saw Europe torn apart, warned of what he called secular religions led by charismatic demagogues who exploit desperate masses and threaten age old institutions and blow apart the political status quo.

In our time we have leaders as politically diverse as Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Turkey's Erdogan or the Philippines' Duterte who seek to play on nationalism and nostalgia to achieve their aims.

Our immoderate world makes us easy prey for despots or populists.

Meet the moderates

Who are the trimmers or moderates among us?

Angela Merkel comes to mind, trying to lead a fractured Europe and grapple with the influx of migrants fleeing war.

Theresa May is another, thrust into the British prime ministership to steer the country to an (admittedly fraught) orderly exit from the European Union.

Both have had to contend with populists on their flanks: Labour's Corbyn in Britain, or the far right Alternative for Germany.

France looked to Emmanuel Macron as a circuit breaker to political fatigue. He had to triumph over the populist right candidate Marine Le Pen.

These are all different types of leaders, each, as we have seen, fallible and guilty of overreach or poor judgment, but broadly following the principles of Raymond Aron to think "politically" as opposed to "ideologically".

In our own country two leaders from different parties, Bob Hawke — with his emphasis on consensus — and John Howard's "relaxed and comfortable" could be seen to fit this model. Both of them later, under leadership pressure, could be accused of having, at times, acted more ideologically more than politically.

Where the heavy lifting is done

And marking the passing of another leader who sought the middle ground, consider the words of the late Indigenous social justice campaigner, Dr Evelyn Scott:

"Our freedom is your freedom ... will you dare to share our dream?"

Aron stressed that moderates must start from "what is" rather than "what ought to be".

Aurelian Craiutu expands on this idea. He says that means "taking popular beliefs and conventions seriously; trying to understand the historical and political contexts in which people make concrete choices".

The message is that ideology and moralising impedes successful political outcomes.

To moderates the centre instead becomes not a dead space but a dynamic space; here is where the heavy lifting is done, where persuasion and leadership rules, and nations are built.

Raymond Aron was critical of those driven by emotion who would sacrifice the present for an unattainable ideal of the future.

These are people, he said, who believed "reform was boring and revolution exciting".

Those words could have been written for our times.

Harder to take the middle way

Tony Abbott, a vehement opponent of same-sex marriage, was attacked and immediately called a sympathetic media to bemoan the tenor of our national debate.

The AFL has publicly and vocally supported the Yes case and has received bomb threats.